We have the technology and the willpower is growing.

still trying to achieve the 11th century successes of Islam. Unfortunately, that stupid nostalgia has led many otherwise promising young men and women to their deaths.

Islam has been in decline since the 15th century and its growth now is fueled by a high birth rate in impoverished countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. There are no droves of people converting to Islam from Western countries.

What mullahs need to do is modernize the otherwise most unevolved religion, send women to school, relax the restrictions on attire and grooming, drive people to new heights in science, mathematics and arts. That might give birth to another Khalil Jibran, Rumi, Banu Musa, Al Kharizmi or Umar Khayyam rather than more Usama bin Ladens.

but I see no evidence of that happening any time soon. Unfortunately I think wresting control from the mullahs will be a long and bloody fight. My prayers are with the secularists who will bear the brunt.

Arafat was secular. Saddam was secular. Gadaffi was secular. Assad is secular.

The opportunity to support secularism is there if we want to but we seem to have encouraged the opposite over the past decade.

in that area are a brutal dictatorship or religious fanatics. Wonderful.

Saddam was contained, Gadaffi was defanged and Assad was never a threat to us.

I just think it's incredibly sad that hundreds of millions of people have to live with only those two choices.

I could almost hear the words of your post in a British accent circa the 19th century.

I'm finding it hard to believe what I am reading on this thread.

If you don't feel for the women who have to live under the thumb of religious freaks then the problem is entirely yours. You want to turn your head while hundreds of millions of women live lives of desperation and virtual slavery, also your problem entirely.

You can stuff your "imperialist" label as I'm not in the least bit interested in what someone who has no answers and merely throws nonsense labels around has to say.

These aren't "choices" is the whole point. We ended up with this as the end result of exploiting people in the region for half a century. Similar to how Israel ended up with Hamas. There were secularists trying to get a foothold, and we undermined them.

For a time, women had full rights as citizens in Iran (yes, Iran). The British (and likely the U.S.) overthrew the government there in an imperialist coup. Now women are fighting there to keep from having acid thrown on them.

the world's ills on the west? Just how long do women have to live in these backwards societies before you stop blaming the past and concentrate on what is happening today? For Heaven's sake - you're like all those confederate loving southerners who long for the plantation days and blame all their problems on General Sherman and the "War of Northern Aggression" Grow the fuck up already.

If the US had brokered a power sharing agreements in the Syrian and Libyan civil wars and post-invasion Iraq, extremists would have no power in the present.

People who are disenfranchised become angry and radicalized. Historians and analysts have been saying this for decades, and are saying it now.

But no, our 'leadership' wants the whole economic pie.

Uday and Qusay would have gone to war against each other.

But at least we could sit back and say "Too bad so sad not our problem"

You have practically (albeit inadvertently) described the imperialist formula.

1. Set up a "brutal dictatorship" (and his family) with wealth and arms to keep the locals in line.

2. Keep him on the payroll with CIA.

3. Send in the oil companies.

4. Extract oil.

5. Rinse and repeat.

What would be hilarious is that your perspective is almost as if the problem is with these colonized peoples, as if they are too uncivilized to do any better.

But it isn't hilarious, that perspective is actually horrifying.

If you want to wring your hands and cluck your tongue on how Western society is to blame for every ill in the world you're obviously part of the problem. How come the US managed to throw off imperial rule without descending into a theocratic mess or a dictatorship? What makes us so freeking different? You want to continue to treat these people like children who have no choices, that's entirely your problem. Your paternalistic attitude is nauseating.

That's a start.

And it is more than a little ironic that you compare (and contrast) the U.S. revolution with "these people [acting] like children."

The British sure as fuck saw the American colonists as acting like children.

But they didn't need the colonies like the West needs the oil.

So the stakes are higher by orders of magnitude.

And I'll thank you to not shove words into my mouth. I don't blame imperial rule for anything - all countries have things in their past to overcome was my point so to continue to treat the mid-East Muslim countries like children who simply cannot help themselves because of "imperialism" or "western intervention" is paternalistic bullshit.

Its just "paternalistic bullshit."

And in between posts about how the 1% are ripping off the 99% here in America, lets forget about this idea that its being done to people sitting on huge reserves of oil and gas.

Unlike Americans, they get tons of help from the US military and CIA. These foreigners have no excuses.

and bitch and whine about historical context while women continue to be treated like shit. That'll surely help.

which is centered around the worship of money and military power in nearly every last crevasse of its pop culture, and which fields an interventionist response for "every ill in the world".

Perhaps you should pause to think about the tens of millions of slaves and Native Americans who perished under the mindset of Manifest Destiny when considering what makes us "so freaking different". Or that we've got hundreds of military bases encircling the globe, which seems to be lost on people who ignorantly inveigh against "blame" and advocate a Western development model.

Actual Western modernity manifested as a movement of authoritarian leaders who became increasingly secular before becoming open to democratic forms as an industrialist class challenged their power. It took hundreds of years. Today, the industrialists are oligarchs pushing corporate globalization and running democracy like a sideshow.

In the end, what it all boils down to is whether or not a particular dictator or despot aligns with the gang of globalists. If they don't, and refuse to let their country's infrastructure and resources be bought or controlled by Wall St. banks for a pittance (essentially putting up a wall against "free trade&quot then they are demonized as dangerous "nationalist dictators". If they do, then the West's patience with the local dictatorship is essentially infinite.

This oddly selective concern for "democracy" has become a problem of Orwellian proportions. Its simplistic, guided by the infotainment panic of the moment, and actually feeds the beast its purporting to slay.

other countries are simply too helpless in the face of western interference is the worst kind of paternalism. I'm sick to death of excusing every barbaric action - whether state sponsored or individuals - with the ever present "the US is the cause of all your problems". Either these countries can join this century or just cut them off until they grow the fuck up. If they wont fight for themselves (like the way the Iraqi army dropped their weapons and ran away from isis), I have zero sympathy. The only ones seemingly worth a damn are the Kurds.

The West developed extractive industries and mass production and has used the technology to maintain a decisive edge over potential rivals... they are intentionally kept in a supplier mode. An independant rival is 'too dangerous'.

And if you paid attention to the rank hysteria generated in the West against countries that ARE trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps in the Western tradition (including home-grown military tech), you'd realize that any advanced development will have the Western hens imagining all sorts of horrors at the hands of 'darkies' and 'ragheads' and clucking for preventative intervention.

"Cut them off" actually sounds like a good response as long as it accompanied by "leave them alone."

But if they aren't dependant on us and "developed" in the style detailed in The Shock Doctrine (i.e. the 21st century version of a banana republic) then they will be identified as a threat and attacked on some pretext. That is how "grown up" we are.

"leaving them alone" and letting them draw their own lines if that's what they want. But this blaming every single terrorist incident on the west is tiresome bullshit.

I can only imagine your second paragraph is about Iran. I would have no problem with them pulling themselves up by their bootstraps if that didn't include massive power in the hands of the mullahs. In fact, they wont get anywhere until they get rid of the 6th century thinking and "great satan this and little satan that". That is not the people I want with nuclear power.

And I was actually thinking of Iraq and other Muslim and Asian countries when I wrote that second paragraph, although Iran does apply as an example.

The fact we have anything to do with them as "allies" is a joke but until we get rid of our addiction to oil (and we are doing that slowly but surely), nothing is going to change on that front. Would our "sanctions" do anything to change their thinking? I'm not so sure about that but let's not forget SA has never been a haven for women - we have nothing to do with that. I look at this "imperialist" argument as an excuse - nothing more. It's like a 50 year old blaming the fact they're a criminal on bad parenting. Get the fuck over it and move on and stop blaming the fact you treat women like shit on something other than the fact you have religious freaks in power and enjoy keeping women down.

In governance, religion is the last resort of the incompetent. The US/NATO technological leviathan is powerfull enough to instill feelings of inadequacy in any population. Continually toppling foreign governments (throwing societies into disarray if not shattering them as in Iraq) is their M.O.

...let's not forget SA has never been a haven for women - we have nothing to do with that.

blame the west for all the problems in the middle east, I'm not going to waste my breath trying to reason with you. Again, I find it a very paternalistic position to take but whatever. They'll bitch and whine about western involvement and there are obviously plenty of people right here who will swallow that crap and allow them to continue to treat their people like shit without assigning responsibility to those actually treating the women like shit. I don't find that helpful at all. I guess I compare it to a serial killer who had a truly horrific childhood - is there a reason they're damaged? Yes. Does that make it okay for them to take it out on the rest of the world? Absolutely not and they should be locked up.

who tried to nationalize their oil and protect their natural resources, so that the only means by which the indigenous peoples could organize was through Islam.

And that worked out well, too. Once they were "terrorists," you could continue to rally popular support against them.


http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847

over local politics and education policy. As our own government shuts off accountability to the public, we are creating a breeding ground for ignorance and hate. The one thing in common with extremists? Their governments are corrupt and unaccountable to the general public.

The US is no exception in this regard. Wall Street, NSA and CIA have created a rotting, stinking corpse of Democracy that we hold up as a model for the free world. And as we relentlessly slaughter civilians, already exploited and abused by their own corrupt government we are simply giving millions of people another excuse to hate and attack Western values and culture, either by violence or by other means.

Imperial presumptions of superiority with cash entitlements in a never ending class war are causing the death of freedom everywhere.

Even here.

are motivated by very diverse reasons.

American fundies want to concentrate power in order to rule over non-fundies and making non-fundies obey.

Islamic fundies want to convert anyone who is a non-muslim and try to recreate the past glories of Islam from the 11th century to reconquer the world. They think Q'uran has the answers to everything and are delusional in the thinking that if anyone reads the Q'uran, they would find it irresistible to be a Muslim.

which is similar to Sharia Law. They use exactly the same arguments about implementing Godgiven laws not manmade laws.

(Although this argument is absurd because Godgiven laws have to be be interpreted by men - and it usually is men - so there are in fact an infinite number of possible interpretations).

Why does no one in America ask why terrorists are allowed to broadcast into the country freely, and why the mass media so happily passes on the violent propaganda?

Would it not help if the mass media did some self censuring of ISIS propaganda, or would that be a violation of the precious, unlimited, and unrestrained freedom of speech?
Instead the mass media virtually puts up the URLs of ISIS propaganda sites, puts their videos on a loop and fawns over the "high production values".

Shockers, ISIS is influencing weak minds in the West, when we all know that is the job of the mass media.

I think the mass media is more of a danger than ISIS. Without the hyperbole of American idiot media they would not be near as strong, and without the enabling of their fear by the mass media there would not be mass fear.

How much free ad time does ISIS get? And it is cutting into the free ad time for Republicans.

Wonder if anyone in the mass media will report on that.....ha,made myself laugh out loud!

for isis's strength? It's the media's fault the Iraqi military showed what fucking cowards they are, it's the media's fault that only the Kurds seem to have any will to fight these 6th century cretins? Seems like you would prefer to let isis continue to murder, rape and pillage with no attention brought to it. Now, why would that be?

Q. Why does no one in America ask why terrorists are allowed to broadcast into the country freely, and why the mass media so happily passes on the violent propaganda?
A. Probably because almost everyone recognizes that invading other countries to shut down their broadcast stations is against international law.

Q. Would it not help if the mass media did some self censuring of ISIS propaganda, or would that be a violation of the precious, unlimited, and unrestrained freedom of speech?
A. Media companies can censor whatever they want. The First Amendment applies to government (Hence the opening phrase "Congress shall make no law...&quot Most folks recognize that freedom of speech is precious, does in fact have limitations and includes restraints.

Q. How much free ad time does ISIS get?
A. After all, that's all we see these days.

Your eager embrace of authoritarian governance is unfortunate.

You are in all sorts of good company, eh?

Man, it would be awful if I said that the UK was just like NK. I was saying that your words appear to say that you would welcome NK-style totalitarian control.

based on their own terms and conditions.

So there is no unlimited freedom of speech on them.

The argument is over *what* they choose to censor and what they choose to allow or promote.

propaganda, even from the likes of ISIS, is hurting freedom of speech...the conflation and confusion and ignorance is astounding.

There is no need to invade anywhere to shut them down.

Facebook apparently restricts posts from Alex Jones' Infowars and photos of breastfeeding but allows ISIS propaganda.

That seems like an inconsistent application of freedom of speech.

The TeaHadists take charge of the Gov here and the next thing you know, all liberal sites are shut down in the name of national security.

Actually it is already happening here, post a video exposing corporate corruption or maleficence and you can go to jail be fined and the video banished from the internet.

One either believes in free speech or one does not.

There is no middle ground.

why Facebook, Twitter etc. censor some things but have allowed extreme jihadi members, groups, images and propaganda to proliferate (many of which call for or celebrate violence)?

IIRC Facebook banned images of breastfeeding and has been accused of stifling some liberal and conservative group pages.

Private companies are under no obligation to provide unlimited freedom of speech on their platforms.

Instead, they are providing a huge platform, playing the terrorists videos for millions of dollars of free advertising, it is pathetic how they do it without any clue of the consequences....for ratings?

Fuck them, they are as responsible for the terror in America as ISIS is.

that is there right.

Just like DU could if they so wanted kick out or ban all liberal and progressives and just allow moderate and conservative democratic posts. That is there right.

What I have a problem with is the Gov behind the ban, THAT is the real problem.

What's next, here is your ball gag, now enjoy your free speech.

It is the road we are heading for if this keeps up.

Here's what my Dad said: 'Never trust a man who hates a free press.'

will cause an increasingly disenfranchised public to turn to extremist groups as a way to fight back.

Until the government advocates justice and accountability FOR ALL, things will continue to get worse.

For example, with the war on drugs, we have an economy that now depends on keeping prisons stuffed with drug users.

Has it eliminated drug related violence here or anywhere else? No. It has just made things worse.

Likewise, every time we kill dozens of civilians by remote control, in pursuit of an elusive terrorist, we just create 100 more.

There is only a small minority of oligarchs whose interests are served by our current system of "democracy" here and abroad.

The only thing certain about this obsession with protecting wealth and power is that things are going to get worse for everyone else.

Much worse.

See anything wrong with the way this is being done?

so if we are in a war against ISIS, then surely platforms that facilitate their recruitment and propaganda should at least be debated?